HARBHAGWAN SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 157/2024, [2024] HKCA 1064

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 1096

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 157 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1491 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant is an Indian national whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. His appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 15 October 2024.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 17 October 2024, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant merely stated that he did not agree with the judgment of this court and wanted to go to the highest court.

3.  In his written submissions, the applicant essentially repeated the risks he said he would face upon return to his home country and criticised the decisions that rejected his claim as erroneous and unfair.

4.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.  We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.